W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement

From: Yaron Y. Goland <ygoland@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:49:38 -0700
To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>, "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@enigmatec.net>
Cc: "Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jjd@eigner.com>, "'Burdett, David'" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GMEOJGJFKALPDCNPFMDOKELDDBAA.ygoland@bea.com>

To quote from section 1 of our charter "The language(s) should build upon
the foundation of the Web Service Description Language 1.2 (WSDL 1.2)."

		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Martin Chapman
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 7:53 AM
> To: Assaf Arkin; Steve Ross-Talbot
> Cc: Jean-Jacques Dubray; 'Burdett, David'; Daniel_Austin@grainger.com;
> public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement
>
>
>
> Asaf,
>
> A very good point as to which part of wsdl (abstract, concrete).
>
> We need to also consider which version of wsdl. Should we tie ourselves to
> the yet to be completed wsdl 1.2 or use 1.1.
> The disadvantage of 1.2 is that it is not stable at the present.
> This could
> also be an advantage, as it provides a possibility for this group to input
> requirements, and give opinions on proposed directions.
>
> Martin.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Assaf Arkin
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:52 AM
> > To: Steve Ross-Talbot
> > Cc: Jean-Jacques Dubray; 'Burdett, David'; Daniel_Austin@grainger.com;
> > public-ws-chor@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve Ross-Talbot wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I have made this WSDL non-WSDL a topic for discussion at the call
> > > later  today.
> > > I'd like to get a summary of the views expressed so far ... any
> > > volunteers?
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Steve T
> >
> > Here's a list of what I've heard so far. I've tried my best to express
> > the view as briefly and broadly as possible, so people who support one
> > or more views can elaborate more. Listed from least to most likely to
> > focuse solely on WSDL:
> >
> > 1. We need to define choreographies in abstract terms. Use of WSDL is an
> > implementation detail.
> >
> > 2. We need to define abstract choreographies with bindings to multiple
> > technologies, including but not limited to WSDL.
> >
> > 3. Using WSDL prevents us from supporting other specifications that
> > address RM, security, transactions, etc.
> >
> > 4. You can't write a good choreography language using WSDL, but you can
> > bind a good choreography to WSDL.
> >
> > 5. The interesting capabilities are already supported by WSDL and
> > specifications that extend WSDL.
> >
> > 6. Being a W3C WG implies ...
> >
> > Feel free to add, remove, expand, donate 2 cents, etc ...
> >
> >
> > I want to add one request for clarification. I did that a few times
> > before, I hope a few people would be willing to take on it this time.
> >
> > WSDL encapsulates two layers within the same specification that
> > personally I would have liked to see written as two different parts of
> > the same specification for better clarity (similar to the two parts in
> > XSDL and SOAP).
> >
> > One layer deals with abstract service types as defined by their
> > interface implying what the service looks like but not any particular
> > service. The other layer deals with actual services as defined by their
> > end-points, protocol binding and the interface they support.
> >
> > Someone may say "I don't like the specification to refer to WSDL
> > services" and someone else may say "I like the specification to refer to
> > WSDL interfaces". These two points of view are not contradictory in any
> > way. However they do become contradictory if we don't specify what part
> > of WSDL we refer to.
> >
> > So if anyone has an opinion for or against WSDL, can you please clarify
> > whether you refer to the WSDL services, WSDL interfaces or WSDL whole. I
> > think that alone would bring a bit more agreement into the discussion.
> >
> > arkin
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 18:49:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:17 GMT